Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1621 | control, N = 811 | treatment, N = 811 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 160 | 51.09 ± 12.32 (25 - 74) | 51.17 ± 12.19 (25 - 74) | 51.01 ± 12.52 (28 - 73) | 0.935 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 162 | 0.849 | |||
f | 127 (78%) | 63 (78%) | 64 (79%) | ||
m | 35 (22%) | 18 (22%) | 17 (21%) | ||
occupation | 162 | 0.917 | |||
day_training | 3 (1.9%) | 2 (2.5%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
full_time | 20 (12%) | 10 (12%) | 10 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 15 (9.3%) | 7 (8.6%) | 8 (9.9%) | ||
other | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
part_time | 30 (19%) | 15 (19%) | 15 (19%) | ||
retired | 41 (25%) | 20 (25%) | 21 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.3%) | 4 (4.9%) | 3 (3.7%) | ||
student | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
unemploy | 40 (25%) | 22 (27%) | 18 (22%) | ||
marital | 162 | 0.941 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
divore | 18 (11%) | 11 (14%) | 7 (8.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.5%) | 2 (2.5%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
married | 47 (29%) | 23 (28%) | 24 (30%) | ||
none | 80 (49%) | 39 (48%) | 41 (51%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.9%) | 2 (2.5%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
widow | 9 (5.6%) | 4 (4.9%) | 5 (6.2%) | ||
edu | 162 | 0.195 | |||
bachelor | 38 (23%) | 14 (17%) | 24 (30%) | ||
diploma | 31 (19%) | 21 (26%) | 10 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (3.1%) | 4 (4.9%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
postgraduate | 13 (8.0%) | 6 (7.4%) | 7 (8.6%) | ||
primary | 11 (6.8%) | 4 (4.9%) | 7 (8.6%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 18 (11%) | 10 (12%) | 8 (9.9%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 38 (23%) | 19 (23%) | 19 (23%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 8 (4.9%) | 3 (3.7%) | 5 (6.2%) | ||
fam_income | 162 | 0.814 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.7%) | 2 (2.5%) | 4 (4.9%) | ||
12001_14000 | 8 (4.9%) | 4 (4.9%) | 4 (4.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.9%) | 3 (3.7%) | 5 (6.2%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.5%) | 2 (2.5%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
18001_20000 | 8 (4.9%) | 6 (7.4%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
20001_above | 29 (18%) | 16 (20%) | 13 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 22 (14%) | 13 (16%) | 9 (11%) | ||
4001_6000 | 19 (12%) | 7 (8.6%) | 12 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 14 (8.6%) | 8 (9.9%) | 6 (7.4%) | ||
8001_10000 | 13 (8.0%) | 6 (7.4%) | 7 (8.6%) | ||
below_2000 | 31 (19%) | 14 (17%) | 17 (21%) | ||
medication | 162 | 144 (89%) | 72 (89%) | 72 (89%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 159 | 15.58 ± 10.47 (0 - 56) | 16.02 ± 11.30 (0 - 56) | 15.12 ± 9.58 (0 - 35) | 0.589 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 157 | 35.71 ± 13.73 (10 - 65) | 35.01 ± 12.44 (10 - 61) | 36.43 ± 14.97 (14 - 65) | 0.519 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1621 | control, N = 811 | treatment, N = 811 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 162 | 3.19 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 3.23 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.15 (1 - 5) | 0.594 |
recovery_stage_b | 162 | 17.98 ± 2.73 (8 - 24) | 17.96 ± 2.88 (8 - 24) | 17.99 ± 2.59 (13 - 24) | 0.954 |
ras_confidence | 162 | 29.99 ± 5.14 (15 - 45) | 29.64 ± 4.85 (15 - 40) | 30.33 ± 5.42 (18 - 45) | 0.394 |
ras_willingness | 162 | 11.81 ± 2.04 (5 - 15) | 11.69 ± 2.06 (5 - 15) | 11.94 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.443 |
ras_goal | 162 | 17.43 ± 3.15 (7 - 25) | 17.20 ± 3.06 (7 - 24) | 17.67 ± 3.23 (11 - 25) | 0.344 |
ras_reliance | 162 | 13.24 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 13.01 ± 2.86 (5 - 18) | 13.47 ± 3.03 (7 - 20) | 0.325 |
ras_domination | 162 | 9.86 ± 2.36 (3 - 15) | 10.06 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 9.67 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 0.289 |
symptom | 162 | 29.67 ± 8.95 (14 - 56) | 29.65 ± 9.19 (14 - 55) | 29.69 ± 8.77 (15 - 56) | 0.979 |
slof_work | 162 | 22.49 ± 4.77 (10 - 30) | 22.74 ± 4.29 (13 - 30) | 22.23 ± 5.22 (10 - 30) | 0.501 |
slof_relationship | 162 | 25.33 ± 5.89 (9 - 35) | 24.86 ± 5.89 (9 - 35) | 25.80 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 0.312 |
satisfaction | 162 | 20.59 ± 7.16 (5 - 35) | 19.79 ± 6.97 (5 - 33) | 21.38 ± 7.29 (5 - 35) | 0.157 |
mhc_emotional | 162 | 10.86 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.59 ± 3.73 (3 - 17) | 11.14 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.364 |
mhc_social | 162 | 15.15 ± 5.58 (5 - 30) | 14.98 ± 5.65 (5 - 30) | 15.33 ± 5.55 (5 - 29) | 0.684 |
mhc_psychological | 162 | 21.93 ± 6.37 (6 - 36) | 21.72 ± 6.21 (7 - 36) | 22.14 ± 6.55 (6 - 36) | 0.676 |
resilisnce | 162 | 16.54 ± 4.58 (6 - 30) | 16.07 ± 4.08 (6 - 24) | 17.01 ± 5.02 (6 - 30) | 0.193 |
social_provision | 162 | 13.51 ± 2.91 (5 - 20) | 13.11 ± 2.72 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 3.06 (5 - 20) | 0.080 |
els_value_living | 162 | 17.02 ± 3.16 (5 - 25) | 16.70 ± 3.00 (6 - 22) | 17.35 ± 3.29 (5 - 25) | 0.197 |
els_life_fulfill | 162 | 12.80 ± 3.37 (4 - 20) | 12.32 ± 3.29 (5 - 19) | 13.27 ± 3.40 (4 - 20) | 0.073 |
els | 162 | 29.82 ± 5.95 (9 - 45) | 29.02 ± 5.67 (11 - 39) | 30.62 ± 6.16 (9 - 45) | 0.089 |
social_connect | 162 | 26.44 ± 9.28 (8 - 48) | 26.79 ± 8.95 (8 - 48) | 26.09 ± 9.65 (8 - 48) | 0.631 |
shs_agency | 162 | 14.35 ± 5.13 (3 - 24) | 13.81 ± 4.79 (3 - 21) | 14.89 ± 5.43 (3 - 24) | 0.184 |
shs_pathway | 162 | 16.08 ± 4.12 (3 - 24) | 15.58 ± 4.08 (3 - 24) | 16.58 ± 4.13 (4 - 24) | 0.123 |
shs | 162 | 30.43 ± 8.86 (6 - 48) | 29.40 ± 8.50 (6 - 45) | 31.47 ± 9.14 (7 - 48) | 0.137 |
esteem | 162 | 12.61 ± 1.60 (9 - 20) | 12.62 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.60 ± 1.59 (10 - 20) | 0.961 |
mlq_search | 162 | 14.82 ± 3.59 (3 - 21) | 14.47 ± 3.59 (4 - 21) | 15.17 ± 3.57 (3 - 21) | 0.213 |
mlq_presence | 162 | 13.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 13.17 ± 4.11 (3 - 21) | 13.68 ± 4.61 (3 - 21) | 0.462 |
mlq | 162 | 28.25 ± 7.09 (6 - 42) | 27.64 ± 6.72 (7 - 40) | 28.85 ± 7.42 (6 - 42) | 0.279 |
empower | 162 | 19.28 ± 4.24 (6 - 30) | 18.86 ± 4.13 (11 - 30) | 19.70 ± 4.33 (6 - 30) | 0.208 |
ismi_resistance | 162 | 14.48 ± 2.57 (5 - 20) | 14.46 ± 2.35 (6 - 20) | 14.49 ± 2.79 (5 - 20) | 0.927 |
ismi_discrimation | 162 | 11.69 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 11.88 ± 2.88 (5 - 20) | 11.49 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.426 |
sss_affective | 162 | 10.07 ± 3.53 (3 - 18) | 9.99 ± 3.45 (3 - 18) | 10.16 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 0.756 |
sss_behavior | 162 | 9.78 ± 3.67 (3 - 18) | 9.84 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 9.72 ± 3.68 (3 - 18) | 0.831 |
sss_cognitive | 162 | 8.31 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 8.23 ± 3.62 (3 - 18) | 8.38 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.799 |
sss | 162 | 28.16 ± 10.09 (9 - 54) | 28.06 ± 9.92 (9 - 54) | 28.26 ± 10.33 (9 - 54) | 0.901 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.23 | 0.130 | 2.98, 3.49 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.099 | 0.183 | -0.458, 0.261 | 0.591 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.126 | 0.195 | -0.257, 0.509 | 0.520 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.348 | 0.282 | -0.205, 0.901 | 0.220 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.312 | 17.4, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.025 | 0.441 | -0.840, 0.889 | 0.955 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.284 | 0.422 | -1.11, 0.544 | 0.503 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.806 | 0.611 | -0.392, 2.00 | 0.190 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.570 | 28.5, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.691 | 0.806 | -0.889, 2.27 | 0.392 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.18 | 0.591 | 0.026, 2.34 | 0.048 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.593 | 0.857 | -1.09, 2.27 | 0.491 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.226 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.247 | 0.319 | -0.378, 0.872 | 0.440 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.218 | 0.240 | -0.689, 0.253 | 0.366 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.453 | 0.348 | -0.230, 1.14 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.353 | 16.5, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.469 | 0.499 | -0.510, 1.45 | 0.349 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.273 | 0.420 | -0.550, 1.10 | 0.518 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.499 | 0.608 | -0.693, 1.69 | 0.414 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.327 | 12.4, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.457 | 0.463 | -0.451, 1.36 | 0.325 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.413 | 0.360 | -0.293, 1.12 | 0.255 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.451 | 0.522 | -0.573, 1.47 | 0.391 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.256 | 9.56, 10.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.395 | 0.362 | -1.11, 0.315 | 0.277 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.103 | 0.332 | -0.753, 0.547 | 0.757 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.16 | 0.480 | 0.223, 2.10 | 0.017 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.990 | 27.7, 31.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.037 | 1.400 | -2.71, 2.78 | 0.979 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.985 | 0.877 | -2.70, 0.734 | 0.265 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.727 | 1.273 | -3.22, 1.77 | 0.569 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.7 | 0.530 | 21.7, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.506 | 0.749 | -1.97, 0.962 | 0.500 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.209 | 0.550 | -1.29, 0.870 | 0.706 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.528 | 0.798 | -1.04, 2.09 | 0.510 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.9 | 0.647 | 23.6, 26.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.938 | 0.915 | -0.856, 2.73 | 0.307 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.466 | 0.689 | -1.82, 0.884 | 0.500 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.682 | 0.999 | -1.28, 2.64 | 0.497 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.797 | 18.2, 21.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.59 | 1.127 | -0.617, 3.80 | 0.160 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.727 | 0.777 | -0.797, 2.25 | 0.353 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.713 | 1.128 | -1.50, 2.92 | 0.529 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.418 | 9.77, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.543 | 0.592 | -0.617, 1.70 | 0.360 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.453 | 0.401 | -0.334, 1.24 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.312 | 0.582 | -1.45, 0.829 | 0.593 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.642 | 13.7, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.358 | 0.908 | -1.42, 2.14 | 0.694 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.820 | 0.696 | -0.545, 2.18 | 0.242 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.100 | 1.009 | -2.08, 1.88 | 0.921 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.7 | 0.727 | 20.3, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.420 | 1.028 | -1.59, 2.43 | 0.683 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.971 | 0.774 | -0.545, 2.49 | 0.213 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.132 | 1.122 | -2.33, 2.07 | 0.907 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.499 | 15.1, 17.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.938 | 0.705 | -0.444, 2.32 | 0.185 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.658 | 0.569 | -0.457, 1.77 | 0.251 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.19 | 0.824 | -0.422, 2.81 | 0.151 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.322 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.802 | 0.455 | -0.090, 1.69 | 0.079 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.478 | 0.362 | -1.19, 0.231 | 0.190 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.742 | 0.524 | -0.286, 1.77 | 0.160 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.354 | 16.0, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.642 | 0.500 | -0.339, 1.62 | 0.201 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.279 | 0.380 | -0.466, 1.02 | 0.465 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.220 | 0.551 | -0.860, 1.30 | 0.691 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.366 | 11.6, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.951 | 0.517 | -0.063, 1.96 | 0.068 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.491 | 0.349 | -0.192, 1.17 | 0.163 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.108 | 0.506 | -1.10, 0.883 | 0.831 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 0.660 | 27.7, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.59 | 0.934 | -0.237, 3.42 | 0.090 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.806 | 0.604 | -0.379, 1.99 | 0.186 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.007 | 0.877 | -1.71, 1.73 | 0.994 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.8 | 1.042 | 24.7, 28.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.704 | 1.474 | -3.59, 2.18 | 0.634 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.010 | 0.973 | -1.92, 1.90 | 0.992 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.74 | 1.411 | -5.51, 0.024 | 0.055 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.565 | 12.7, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.07 | 0.799 | -0.492, 2.64 | 0.181 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.188 | 0.524 | -0.839, 1.21 | 0.721 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.647 | 0.760 | -0.842, 2.14 | 0.397 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.447 | 14.7, 16.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 0.632 | -0.239, 2.24 | 0.115 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.502 | 0.428 | -0.336, 1.34 | 0.244 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.237 | 0.621 | -1.45, 0.979 | 0.703 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.966 | 27.5, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.07 | 1.366 | -0.602, 4.75 | 0.131 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.683 | 0.877 | -1.04, 2.40 | 0.438 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.392 | 1.272 | -2.10, 2.89 | 0.759 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.167 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.012 | 0.236 | -0.474, 0.450 | 0.958 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.076 | 0.264 | -0.594, 0.442 | 0.775 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.180 | 0.382 | -0.568, 0.929 | 0.637 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.394 | 13.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.704 | 0.558 | -0.390, 1.80 | 0.209 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.714 | 0.461 | -0.189, 1.62 | 0.125 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.778 | 0.667 | -2.09, 0.530 | 0.247 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.478 | 12.2, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.506 | 0.676 | -0.819, 1.83 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.642 | 0.502 | -0.341, 1.62 | 0.204 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.101 | 0.727 | -1.53, 1.32 | 0.890 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.784 | 26.1, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.21 | 1.109 | -0.964, 3.38 | 0.277 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.34 | 0.839 | -0.305, 2.98 | 0.114 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.850 | 1.216 | -3.23, 1.53 | 0.486 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.468 | 17.9, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.662 | -0.457, 2.14 | 0.206 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.917 | 0.474 | -0.012, 1.85 | 0.056 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.09 | 0.687 | -2.44, 0.255 | 0.116 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.279 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.037 | 0.394 | -0.736, 0.810 | 0.925 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.025 | 0.352 | -0.715, 0.665 | 0.943 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.697 | 0.510 | -0.303, 1.70 | 0.175 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.348 | 11.2, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.383 | 0.492 | -1.35, 0.581 | 0.437 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.152 | 0.440 | -1.02, 0.710 | 0.730 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.482 | 0.637 | -1.73, 0.767 | 0.451 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.99 | 0.392 | 9.22, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.173 | 0.554 | -0.914, 1.26 | 0.756 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.036 | 0.398 | -0.745, 0.816 | 0.929 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.21 | 0.577 | -2.34, -0.075 | 0.040 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.84 | 0.405 | 9.05, 10.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.123 | 0.572 | -1.25, 0.999 | 0.829 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.177 | 0.405 | -0.970, 0.617 | 0.664 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.531 | 0.587 | -1.68, 0.620 | 0.368 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.23 | 0.404 | 7.44, 9.03 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.148 | 0.571 | -0.972, 1.27 | 0.796 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.074 | 0.443 | -0.793, 0.942 | 0.867 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.05 | 0.642 | -2.30, 0.212 | 0.107 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 1.114 | 25.9, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.198 | 1.575 | -2.89, 3.28 | 0.900 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.165 | 1.039 | -2.20, 1.87 | 0.874 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.54 | 1.508 | -5.49, 0.417 | 0.096 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.23 (95% CI [2.98, 3.49], t(232) = 24.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26], t(232) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.51], t(232) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.90], t(232) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.96 (95% CI [17.35, 18.57], t(232) = 57.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.89], t(232) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 8.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.54], t(232) = -0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.00], t(232) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.64 (95% CI [28.52, 30.76], t(232) = 51.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.27], t(232) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.03, 2.34], t(232) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [5.08e-03, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.27], t(232) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.69 (95% CI [11.25, 12.13], t(232) = 51.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.87], t(232) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.25], t(232) = -0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.14], t(232) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.20 (95% CI [16.51, 17.89], t(232) = 48.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.45], t(232) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.10], t(232) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.69], t(232) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.01 (95% CI [12.37, 13.65], t(232) = 39.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.36], t(232) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.12], t(232) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.47], t(232) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.56, 10.56], t(232) = 39.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.32], t(232) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.55], t(232) = -0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.22, 2.10], t(232) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.10, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.65 (95% CI [27.71, 31.60], t(232) = 29.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.71, 2.78], t(232) = 0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = 4.06e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.70, 0.73], t(232) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-3.22, 1.77], t(232) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.74 (95% CI [21.70, 23.78], t(232) = 42.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.96], t(232) = -0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.87], t(232) = -0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.09], t(232) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.86 (95% CI [23.60, 26.13], t(232) = 38.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.73], t(232) = 1.02, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.88], t(232) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.64], t(232) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.79 (95% CI [18.23, 21.35], t(232) = 24.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.80], t(232) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.25], t(232) = 0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.92], t(232) = 0.63, p = 0.527; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.59 (95% CI [9.77, 11.41], t(232) = 25.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.70], t(232) = 0.92, p = 0.359; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.24], t(232) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.83], t(232) = -0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.98 (95% CI [13.72, 16.23], t(232) = 23.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.14], t(232) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.18], t(232) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.88], t(232) = -0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.72 (95% CI [20.29, 23.14], t(232) = 29.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.59, 2.43], t(232) = 0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.49], t(232) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.33, 2.07], t(232) = -0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.07 (95% CI [15.10, 17.05], t(232) = 32.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.44, 2.32], t(232) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.77], t(232) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.81], t(232) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.48, 13.74], t(232) = 40.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.69], t(232) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.23], t(232) = -1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.77], t(232) = 1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.70 (95% CI [16.01, 17.40], t(232) = 47.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.62], t(232) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.02], t(232) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.30], t(232) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.32 (95% CI [11.60, 13.04], t(232) = 33.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.96], t(232) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.17], t(232) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.88], t(232) = -0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.02 (95% CI [27.73, 30.32], t(232) = 43.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.42], t(232) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.99], t(232) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.67e-03, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.73], t(232) = 7.60e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.12e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.79 (95% CI [24.75, 28.83], t(232) = 25.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.59, 2.18], t(232) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.92, 1.90], t(232) = -0.01, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.74, 95% CI [-5.51, 0.02], t(232) = -1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.56e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.81 (95% CI [12.71, 14.92], t(232) = 24.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.64], t(232) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.21], t(232) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.14], t(232) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.58 (95% CI [14.70, 16.46], t(232) = 34.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.24], t(232) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.34], t(232) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.98], t(232) = -0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.50, 31.29], t(232) = 30.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [-0.60, 4.75], t(232) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.40], t(232) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-2.10, 2.89], t(232) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.23) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.29, 12.94], t(232) = 75.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.45], t(232) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -8.30e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.44], t(232) = -0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.93], t(232) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.70, 15.24], t(232) = 36.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.80], t(232) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.62], t(232) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.09, 0.53], t(232) = -1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.24, 14.11], t(232) = 27.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.83], t(232) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.62], t(232) = 1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.32], t(232) = -0.14, p = 0.889; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.64 (95% CI [26.11, 29.18], t(232) = 35.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.38], t(232) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.98], t(232) = 1.60, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-3.23, 1.53], t(232) = -0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.95, 19.78], t(232) = 40.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.46, 2.14], t(232) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.85], t(232) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-2.88e-03, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.26], t(232) = -1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.46 (95% CI [13.91, 15.00], t(232) = 51.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.81], t(232) = 0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.66], t(232) = -0.07, p = 0.943; Std. beta = -9.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.70], t(232) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [11.19, 12.56], t(232) = 34.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.58], t(232) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.71], t(232) = -0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.77], t(232) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.22, 10.76], t(232) = 25.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.26], t(232) = 0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.82], t(232) = 0.09, p = 0.928; Std. beta = 1.00e-02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.34, -0.07], t(232) = -2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.84 (95% CI [9.05, 10.63], t(232) = 24.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.00], t(232) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.62], t(232) = -0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.62], t(232) = -0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.23 (95% CI [7.44, 9.03], t(232) = 20.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.27], t(232) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.94], t(232) = 0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.21], t(232) = -1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.06 (95% CI [25.88, 30.24], t(232) = 25.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-2.89, 3.28], t(232) = 0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.20, 1.87], t(232) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.54, 95% CI [-5.49, 0.42], t(232) = -1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 748.196 | 758.613 | -371.098 | 742.196 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 748.467 | 769.301 | -368.234 | 736.467 | 5.728 | 3 | 0.126 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,151.161 | 1,161.578 | -572.581 | 1,145.161 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,154.937 | 1,175.770 | -571.468 | 1,142.937 | 2.225 | 3 | 0.527 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,414.562 | 1,424.979 | -704.281 | 1,408.562 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,407.668 | 1,428.502 | -697.834 | 1,395.668 | 12.894 | 3 | 0.005 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 967.100 | 977.516 | -480.550 | 961.100 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 969.978 | 990.812 | -478.989 | 957.978 | 3.121 | 3 | 0.373 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,197.038 | 1,207.455 | -595.519 | 1,191.038 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,197.979 | 1,218.813 | -592.990 | 1,185.979 | 5.059 | 3 | 0.168 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,153.810 | 1,164.226 | -573.905 | 1,147.810 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,151.815 | 1,172.649 | -569.908 | 1,139.815 | 7.995 | 3 | 0.046 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,059.085 | 1,069.502 | -526.543 | 1,053.085 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,055.957 | 1,076.791 | -521.978 | 1,043.957 | 9.128 | 3 | 0.028 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,647.038 | 1,657.455 | -820.519 | 1,641.038 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,648.379 | 1,669.212 | -818.189 | 1,636.379 | 4.660 | 3 | 0.198 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,367.624 | 1,378.041 | -680.812 | 1,361.624 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,372.898 | 1,393.732 | -680.449 | 1,360.898 | 0.726 | 3 | 0.867 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,467.828 | 1,478.245 | -730.914 | 1,461.828 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,471.649 | 1,492.482 | -729.824 | 1,459.649 | 2.179 | 3 | 0.536 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,559.310 | 1,569.727 | -776.655 | 1,553.310 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,558.748 | 1,579.582 | -773.374 | 1,546.748 | 6.562 | 3 | 0.087 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,245.596 | 1,256.013 | -619.798 | 1,239.596 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,249.546 | 1,270.379 | -618.773 | 1,237.546 | 2.050 | 3 | 0.562 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,466.837 | 1,477.253 | -730.418 | 1,460.837 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,470.337 | 1,491.171 | -729.169 | 1,458.337 | 2.499 | 3 | 0.475 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,523.571 | 1,533.988 | -758.786 | 1,517.571 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,526.766 | 1,547.600 | -757.383 | 1,514.766 | 2.805 | 3 | 0.423 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,364.550 | 1,374.967 | -679.275 | 1,358.550 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,356.624 | 1,377.458 | -672.312 | 1,344.624 | 13.926 | 3 | 0.003 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,147.860 | 1,158.277 | -570.930 | 1,141.860 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,146.390 | 1,167.224 | -567.195 | 1,134.390 | 7.470 | 3 | 0.058 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,183.627 | 1,194.044 | -588.814 | 1,177.627 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,185.444 | 1,206.278 | -586.722 | 1,173.444 | 4.183 | 3 | 0.242 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,185.094 | 1,195.511 | -589.547 | 1,179.094 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,184.681 | 1,205.515 | -586.341 | 1,172.681 | 6.412 | 3 | 0.093 |
els | null | 3 | 1,460.526 | 1,470.943 | -727.263 | 1,454.526 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,460.080 | 1,480.914 | -724.040 | 1,448.080 | 6.446 | 3 | 0.092 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,682.125 | 1,692.541 | -838.062 | 1,676.125 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,680.048 | 1,700.882 | -834.024 | 1,668.048 | 8.077 | 3 | 0.044 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,386.624 | 1,397.040 | -690.312 | 1,380.624 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,387.681 | 1,408.515 | -687.840 | 1,375.681 | 4.943 | 3 | 0.176 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,278.727 | 1,289.144 | -636.363 | 1,272.727 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,280.670 | 1,301.504 | -634.335 | 1,268.670 | 4.056 | 3 | 0.255 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,638.512 | 1,648.928 | -816.256 | 1,632.512 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,639.898 | 1,660.732 | -813.949 | 1,627.898 | 4.613 | 3 | 0.202 |
esteem | null | 3 | 866.639 | 877.056 | -430.320 | 860.639 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 872.374 | 893.208 | -430.187 | 860.374 | 0.265 | 3 | 0.967 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,245.575 | 1,255.992 | -619.787 | 1,239.575 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,248.255 | 1,269.089 | -618.128 | 1,236.255 | 3.320 | 3 | 0.345 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,322.803 | 1,333.220 | -658.401 | 1,316.803 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,325.568 | 1,346.402 | -656.784 | 1,313.568 | 3.235 | 3 | 0.357 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,561.306 | 1,571.723 | -777.653 | 1,555.306 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,563.588 | 1,584.421 | -775.794 | 1,551.588 | 3.719 | 3 | 0.294 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,308.884 | 1,319.301 | -651.442 | 1,302.884 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,310.251 | 1,331.085 | -649.126 | 1,298.251 | 4.633 | 3 | 0.201 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,090.932 | 1,101.349 | -542.466 | 1,084.932 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,093.269 | 1,114.103 | -540.634 | 1,081.269 | 3.663 | 3 | 0.300 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,195.784 | 1,206.201 | -594.892 | 1,189.784 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,198.656 | 1,219.490 | -593.328 | 1,186.656 | 3.128 | 3 | 0.372 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,228.357 | 1,238.774 | -611.179 | 1,222.357 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,226.467 | 1,247.300 | -607.233 | 1,214.467 | 7.890 | 3 | 0.048 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,236.855 | 1,247.272 | -615.427 | 1,230.855 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,239.666 | 1,260.500 | -613.833 | 1,227.666 | 3.189 | 3 | 0.363 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,249.665 | 1,260.081 | -621.832 | 1,243.665 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,251.189 | 1,272.023 | -619.595 | 1,239.189 | 4.475 | 3 | 0.214 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,711.963 | 1,722.380 | -852.981 | 1,705.963 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,711.723 | 1,732.556 | -849.861 | 1,699.723 | 6.240 | 3 | 0.100 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 81 | 3.23 ± 1.17 | 81 | 3.14 ± 1.17 | 0.591 | 0.103 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 40 | 3.36 ± 1.14 | -0.132 | 36 | 3.61 ± 1.14 | -0.494 | 0.343 | -0.260 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 81 | 17.96 ± 2.81 | 81 | 17.99 ± 2.81 | 0.955 | -0.012 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 40 | 17.68 ± 2.65 | 0.140 | 36 | 18.51 ± 2.64 | -0.257 | 0.172 | -0.410 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 81 | 29.64 ± 5.13 | 81 | 30.33 ± 5.13 | 0.392 | -0.252 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 40 | 30.83 ± 4.43 | -0.432 | 36 | 32.11 ± 4.35 | -0.648 | 0.204 | -0.468 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 81 | 11.69 ± 2.03 | 81 | 11.94 ± 2.03 | 0.440 | -0.221 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 40 | 11.47 ± 1.77 | 0.195 | 36 | 12.17 ± 1.74 | -0.210 | 0.083 | -0.625 |
ras_goal | 1st | 81 | 17.20 ± 3.18 | 81 | 17.67 ± 3.18 | 0.349 | -0.237 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 40 | 17.47 ± 2.87 | -0.138 | 36 | 18.44 ± 2.84 | -0.390 | 0.141 | -0.490 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 81 | 13.01 ± 2.95 | 81 | 13.47 ± 2.95 | 0.325 | -0.272 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 40 | 13.43 ± 2.59 | -0.245 | 36 | 14.33 ± 2.55 | -0.513 | 0.126 | -0.539 |
ras_domination | 1st | 81 | 10.06 ± 2.31 | 81 | 9.67 ± 2.31 | 0.277 | 0.250 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 40 | 9.96 ± 2.14 | 0.065 | 36 | 10.73 ± 2.13 | -0.672 | 0.118 | -0.487 |
symptom | 1st | 81 | 29.65 ± 8.91 | 81 | 29.69 ± 8.91 | 0.979 | -0.009 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 40 | 28.67 ± 7.35 | 0.245 | 36 | 27.98 ± 7.18 | 0.425 | 0.680 | 0.171 |
slof_work | 1st | 81 | 22.74 ± 4.77 | 81 | 22.23 ± 4.77 | 0.500 | 0.198 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 40 | 22.53 ± 4.12 | 0.082 | 36 | 22.55 ± 4.05 | -0.125 | 0.982 | -0.008 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 81 | 24.86 ± 5.83 | 81 | 25.80 ± 5.83 | 0.307 | -0.293 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 40 | 24.40 ± 5.07 | 0.145 | 36 | 26.02 ± 4.99 | -0.067 | 0.162 | -0.505 |
satisfaction | 1st | 81 | 19.79 ± 7.18 | 81 | 21.38 ± 7.18 | 0.160 | -0.443 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 40 | 20.52 ± 6.08 | -0.202 | 36 | 22.82 ± 5.96 | -0.401 | 0.097 | -0.642 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 81 | 10.59 ± 3.77 | 81 | 11.14 ± 3.77 | 0.360 | -0.293 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 40 | 11.05 ± 3.18 | -0.244 | 36 | 11.28 ± 3.11 | -0.076 | 0.749 | -0.125 |
mhc_social | 1st | 81 | 14.98 ± 5.78 | 81 | 15.33 ± 5.78 | 0.694 | -0.110 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 40 | 15.79 ± 5.06 | -0.252 | 36 | 16.05 ± 4.98 | -0.222 | 0.823 | -0.079 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 81 | 21.72 ± 6.54 | 81 | 22.14 ± 6.54 | 0.683 | -0.117 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 40 | 22.69 ± 5.69 | -0.270 | 36 | 22.98 ± 5.60 | -0.233 | 0.824 | -0.080 |
resilisnce | 1st | 81 | 16.07 ± 4.49 | 81 | 17.01 ± 4.49 | 0.185 | -0.352 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 40 | 16.73 ± 3.99 | -0.247 | 36 | 18.86 ± 3.94 | -0.694 | 0.020 | -0.800 |
social_provision | 1st | 81 | 13.11 ± 2.90 | 81 | 13.91 ± 2.90 | 0.079 | -0.474 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 40 | 12.63 ± 2.57 | 0.283 | 36 | 14.18 ± 2.53 | -0.156 | 0.009 | -0.913 |
els_value_living | 1st | 81 | 16.70 ± 3.18 | 81 | 17.35 ± 3.18 | 0.201 | -0.363 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 40 | 16.98 ± 2.78 | -0.158 | 36 | 17.84 ± 2.74 | -0.282 | 0.175 | -0.487 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 81 | 12.32 ± 3.29 | 81 | 13.27 ± 3.29 | 0.068 | -0.591 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 40 | 12.81 ± 2.77 | -0.305 | 36 | 13.65 ± 2.72 | -0.238 | 0.182 | -0.524 |
els | 1st | 81 | 29.02 ± 5.94 | 81 | 30.62 ± 5.94 | 0.090 | -0.573 | ||
els | 2nd | 40 | 29.83 ± 4.95 | -0.290 | 36 | 31.43 ± 4.84 | -0.292 | 0.156 | -0.575 |
social_connect | 1st | 81 | 26.79 ± 9.38 | 81 | 26.09 ± 9.38 | 0.634 | 0.157 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 40 | 26.78 ± 7.85 | 0.002 | 36 | 23.34 ± 7.68 | 0.614 | 0.055 | 0.769 |
shs_agency | 1st | 81 | 13.81 ± 5.08 | 81 | 14.89 ± 5.08 | 0.181 | -0.445 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 40 | 14.00 ± 4.25 | -0.078 | 36 | 15.72 ± 4.16 | -0.346 | 0.076 | -0.713 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 81 | 15.58 ± 4.02 | 81 | 16.58 ± 4.02 | 0.115 | -0.506 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 40 | 16.08 ± 3.39 | -0.254 | 36 | 16.85 ± 3.32 | -0.134 | 0.323 | -0.386 |
shs | 1st | 81 | 29.40 ± 8.69 | 81 | 31.47 ± 8.69 | 0.131 | -0.514 | ||
shs | 2nd | 40 | 30.08 ± 7.22 | -0.169 | 36 | 32.54 ± 7.06 | -0.267 | 0.134 | -0.612 |
esteem | 1st | 81 | 12.62 ± 1.50 | 81 | 12.60 ± 1.50 | 0.958 | 0.009 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 40 | 12.54 ± 1.49 | 0.058 | 36 | 12.71 ± 1.49 | -0.079 | 0.624 | -0.128 |
mlq_search | 1st | 81 | 14.47 ± 3.55 | 81 | 15.17 ± 3.55 | 0.209 | -0.325 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 40 | 15.18 ± 3.18 | -0.330 | 36 | 15.11 ± 3.15 | 0.030 | 0.919 | 0.034 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 81 | 13.17 ± 4.30 | 81 | 13.68 ± 4.30 | 0.455 | -0.217 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 40 | 13.81 ± 3.73 | -0.275 | 36 | 14.22 ± 3.67 | -0.232 | 0.634 | -0.174 |
mlq | 1st | 81 | 27.64 ± 7.06 | 81 | 28.85 ± 7.06 | 0.277 | -0.310 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 40 | 28.98 ± 6.15 | -0.343 | 36 | 29.34 ± 6.05 | -0.125 | 0.798 | -0.092 |
empower | 1st | 81 | 18.86 ± 4.21 | 81 | 19.70 ± 4.21 | 0.206 | -0.382 | ||
empower | 2nd | 40 | 19.78 ± 3.61 | -0.417 | 36 | 19.53 ± 3.54 | 0.080 | 0.760 | 0.115 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 81 | 14.46 ± 2.51 | 81 | 14.49 ± 2.51 | 0.925 | -0.022 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 40 | 14.43 ± 2.31 | 0.015 | 36 | 15.17 ± 2.29 | -0.402 | 0.167 | -0.439 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 81 | 11.88 ± 3.13 | 81 | 11.49 ± 3.13 | 0.437 | 0.183 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 40 | 11.72 ± 2.89 | 0.073 | 36 | 10.86 ± 2.86 | 0.304 | 0.191 | 0.414 |
sss_affective | 1st | 81 | 9.99 ± 3.53 | 81 | 10.16 ± 3.53 | 0.756 | -0.094 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 40 | 10.02 ± 3.03 | -0.019 | 36 | 8.99 ± 2.97 | 0.634 | 0.135 | 0.560 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 81 | 9.84 ± 3.64 | 81 | 9.72 ± 3.64 | 0.829 | 0.066 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 40 | 9.66 ± 3.11 | 0.094 | 36 | 9.01 ± 3.05 | 0.377 | 0.356 | 0.349 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 81 | 8.23 ± 3.64 | 81 | 8.38 ± 3.64 | 0.796 | -0.072 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 40 | 8.31 ± 3.19 | -0.036 | 36 | 7.41 ± 3.15 | 0.470 | 0.219 | 0.435 |
sss | 1st | 81 | 28.06 ± 10.02 | 81 | 28.26 ± 10.02 | 0.900 | -0.041 | ||
sss | 2nd | 40 | 27.90 ± 8.39 | 0.034 | 36 | 25.56 ± 8.21 | 0.564 | 0.221 | 0.489 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(219.83) = -0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.26)
2st
t(228.79) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.77)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(206.47) = 0.06, p = 0.955, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.89)
2st
t(227.08) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.03)
ras_confidence
1st
t(184.03) = 0.86, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.28)
2st
t(232.90) = 1.27, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.70 to 3.27)
ras_willingness
1st
t(185.68) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.88)
2st
t(232.28) = 1.74, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.49)
ras_goal
1st
t(193.54) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.45)
2st
t(229.32) = 1.48, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.26)
ras_reliance
1st
t(187.75) = 0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.37)
2st
t(231.47) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.07)
ras_domination
1st
t(201.45) = -1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.32)
2st
t(227.47) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.73)
symptom
1st
t(176.63) = 0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.73 to 2.80)
2st
t(233.64) = -0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.98 to 2.60)
slof_work
1st
t(184.18) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.97)
2st
t(232.84) = 0.02, p = 0.982, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.87)
slof_relationship
1st
t(185.61) = 1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.74)
2st
t(232.31) = 1.40, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.66 to 3.90)
satisfaction
1st
t(180.78) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.63 to 3.82)
2st
t(233.81) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.42 to 5.03)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(179.96) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.71)
2st
t(233.94) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.65)
mhc_social
1st
t(186.79) = 0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.15)
2st
t(231.85) = 0.22, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.53)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(185.61) = 0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.61 to 2.45)
2st
t(232.31) = 0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.27 to 2.84)
resilisnce
1st
t(190.29) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.33)
2st
t(230.47) = 2.34, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.93)
social_provision
1st
t(189.23) = 1.76, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.70)
2st
t(230.88) = 2.64, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.39 to 2.70)
els_value_living
1st
t(186.19) = 1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.63)
2st
t(232.08) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.11)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(179.68) = 1.84, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.97)
2st
t(233.96) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.08)
els
1st
t(177.94) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.43)
2st
t(233.94) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.61 to 3.81)
social_connect
1st
t(178.76) = -0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.61 to 2.20)
2st
t(234.00) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-6.96 to 0.07)
shs_agency
1st
t(178.47) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.65)
2st
t(233.99) = 1.78, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.18 to 3.62)
shs_pathway
1st
t(179.90) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.25)
2st
t(233.94) = 0.99, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.28)
shs
1st
t(177.60) = 1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.62 to 4.77)
2st
t(233.89) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.76 to 5.70)
esteem
1st
t(226.72) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.45)
2st
t(230.95) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.84)
mlq_search
1st
t(192.10) = 1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.80)
2st
t(229.81) = -0.10, p = 0.919, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.36)
mlq_presence
1st
t(184.71) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.84)
2st
t(232.65) = 0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.08)
mlq
1st
t(185.90) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.40)
2st
t(232.20) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.40 to 3.12)
empower
1st
t(182.73) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.14)
2st
t(233.33) = -0.31, p = 0.760, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.37)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(198.98) = 0.09, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.81)
2st
t(227.88) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.78)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(199.22) = -0.78, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.59)
2st
t(227.83) = -1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.44)
sss_affective
1st
t(182.90) = 0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.27)
2st
t(233.27) = -1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.32)
sss_behavior
1st
t(182.07) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.01)
2st
t(233.51) = -0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.74)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(187.47) = 0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.28)
2st
t(231.58) = -1.23, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.33 to 0.54)
sss
1st
t(178.74) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.91 to 3.31)
2st
t(234.00) = -1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-6.09 to 1.41)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(116.52) = 2.31, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.07 to 0.88)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(104.08) = 1.18, p = 0.485, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.40)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(88.17) = 2.86, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.54 to 3.01)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(89.23) = 0.93, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.74)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(94.45) = 1.75, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.65)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(90.57) = 2.28, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.62)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(100.16) = 3.04, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.75)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(83.60) = -1.85, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.55 to 0.13)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(88.27) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.47)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(89.18) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.66)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(86.14) = 1.76, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.07)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(85.63) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.98)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(89.94) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.18)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(89.18) = 1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.46)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(92.25) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.66 to 3.04)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(91.54) = 0.69, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.02)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(89.56) = 1.25, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.29)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(85.46) = 1.04, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.11)
els
1st vs 2st
t(84.39) = 1.28, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.08)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(84.89) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.79 to -0.71)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(84.72) = 1.51, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.93)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(85.59) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(84.18) = 1.16, p = 0.495, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.91)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(125.22) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.65)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(93.47) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.90)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(88.60) = 1.02, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.59)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(89.37) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.24)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(87.35) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.82)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(98.32) = 1.81, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.41)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(98.50) = -1.37, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.28)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(87.46) = -2.79, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.00 to -0.34)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(86.94) = -1.66, p = 0.201, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.14)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(90.38) = -2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.90 to -0.05)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(84.88) = -2.47, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.88 to -0.53)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(111.90) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.51)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(100.93) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.56)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(86.79) = 2.00, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.36)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(87.73) = -0.91, p = 0.735, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.26)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(92.39) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.11)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(88.93) = 1.14, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.13)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(97.46) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.56)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(82.69) = -1.12, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.73 to 0.76)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(86.88) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.89)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(87.69) = -0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.91)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(84.96) = 0.93, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.28)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(84.51) = 1.13, p = 0.527, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.25)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(88.37) = 1.17, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.21)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(87.69) = 1.25, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.51)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(90.42) = 1.15, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.79)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(89.80) = -1.32, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.24)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(88.03) = 0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.04)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(84.36) = 1.41, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.19)
els
1st vs 2st
t(83.40) = 1.33, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.01)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(83.85) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.95 to 1.93)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(83.69) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.23)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(84.47) = 1.17, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.35)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(83.21) = 0.78, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.43)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(119.58) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.45)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(91.52) = 1.54, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.63)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(87.17) = 1.28, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.64)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(87.86) = 1.59, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.33 to 3.01)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(86.05) = 1.93, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.86)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(95.82) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.68)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(95.98) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.72)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(86.15) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.83)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(85.68) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.63)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(88.76) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.96)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(83.84) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.24 to 1.91)
Plot
